NIPC Law

Author Interdigital Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Patents Court (Mr Justice Mellor) Interdigital Technology Corp and others v Lenovo Group Ltd and others    [2023]   EWHC 539 (Pat) 16 March 2023 This was the second time that an English court had been called upon to determine what terms were fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") in a licence between holders of patents that are essential for compliance with a technical standard ("standard essential patent" or "SEPs") and those wishing to use those patents to comply with the standard ("implementers").  The other time was in  Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies (UK) Ltd and another  [2017] EWHC 711 (Pat) ("UPHC").  Mr Justice Birss (as he then was) settled an agreement on FRAND  terms which he annexed to his judgment in  Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and another [2017] EWHC 1304 (Pat), [2017

C ontains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 . Jane Lambert The CEO of the Intellectual Property Office, who is known as "the registrar" in trade mark proceedings pursuant to s.62 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, exercises judicial as well as executive functions.  He or she adjudicates disputes between applicants for trade marks and examiners known as ex parte proceedings. The registrar also decides disputes between applicants or registered proprietors and third parties that are known as  inter pates proceedings". The registrar's judicial functions are performed on his or her behalf by officials known as "hearing officers" though they are not mentioned in the legislation.  I discussed ex parte hearings in If the examiner says "no" - ex parte hearings in the Trade Marks Registry   in NIPC London on 10 Aug 2015 and inter partes hearings in Oppositions in the IPO's Trade Mark Registry   in the same publicati

Author Coolcaesar    Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons   Jane Lambert Chancery Division (Mr Justice Richards) Instagram LLC v Meta 404 Ltd [2023] EWHC 436 (Ch) (3 March 2023) This was an appeal by Instagram LLC ("Instagram") against Mr Salthouse's decision to allow E E & T Limited's application to register SOUNDGRAM as a trade make for various services in class 38 to proceed to grant (see Instagram LLC v EE & T Limited. BL O/060/22 22 Jan 2022), Following Mr Salthouse's decision E E & T Limited assigned the trade mark application to Meta 104 Ltd ("Meta"). The parties agreed that Meta should be substituted as the respondent.  The appeal came on before Mr Justice Richards on 9 Feb 2023.  By his judgment of 3 March 2023, His Lordship dismissed Instagram's appeal (see Instagram LLC v Meta 404 Ltd [2023] EWHC 436 (Ch) (3 March 2023)), The Opposition Instagram   opposed the application under s.5 (2) (b) and s.5 (3) of the Tr

  Author Abhishekptlbbk   Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Patents Court (HH Judge Hacon)  JC Bamford Excavators Ltd v Manitou UK Ltd and another [2022] EWHC 1724 (Pat) (4 July 2022) This was a claim by J C Bamford Excavators ("JCB") against Manitou UK Ltd and its French holding company Manitou BF SA ("Manitou") for patent infringement and a counterclaim by Manitou for revocation of the patents in suit.   Those patents were  EP 1 532 065 B2 for a Control system for a load handling apparatus     (“EP 065”), EP 2 263 965 B9 for a Method of Operating a Working Machine   (“EP 965”), EP 2 616 382 B3 for a Controller for use with a machine, machine including said controller, and method for controlling a machine  (“EP 382”) and UK Patent No. GB 2 390 595 B for a Control system for a machine (“GB 595”). The action and counterclaim came on for trial before His Honour Judge Hacon between 15 and 18 and 24 and 25 Nov 2021.  At para [174] of his ju